Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Are Supernatural Explanations Invalid?

So
what is wrong exactly with a "supernatural" or "spiritual"
explanation for the resurrection? Well, I think some people are simply inclined
to equate "nature" with "reality," outside of which lies
the "supernatural." But this is misleading. If God exists – and
that's the underlying issue here – then he is necessarily part of reality
(given the modest premise that anything that exists is part of reality). As we have seen, the real problem here
is that naturalists, not supernaturalists, are understating the evidence.

Those
remarks admittedly call for some elaboration. The following brief set of remarks
is not meant to be a definitive answer but more of a conversation starter.
However, I do believe there are some preliminary observations that can be made
in the interest of clarification.

For
starters, to assert that the supernatural lies outside the domain of reality is
not just misleading, but fallacious.
Specifically the assertion begs the question. This is why I question whether
the common atheistic understanding of "metaphysical naturalism" as the
belief that "nature is all there is," is useful in the least. Even the
more nuanced definitions seem conceptually somewhat empty. Keith Augustine, for
example, says, "Fundamentally, naturalism is a metaphysical position about
what sorts of causal relations exist – it is the position that every caused
event within the natural world has a natural cause."[1] This is slightly better,
because it leaves other metaphysical possibilities open, but still not open to
investigation or confirmation in principle. Thus it still begs the question
when it comes to explanations of phenomena.

But
what then is "supernature"?
We could begin a reasonable answer by asking in turn, "What is nature?"
If the answer we get is "all that exists" or "all that can be
experienced or investigated in principle," then we are back to arguing in
circles. When we set out to seriously explore the question of God's existence,
we are clearly asking whether God exists in
reality. If the proposition "God exists" is at least
potentially true, and there is evidence for the truth of that proposition, then
it seems that there is potentially more to reality than nature as typically understood.

I
propose a distinction not between "natural" and "supernatural"
but between "natural" and "spiritual." On this view,
"spirit" is a reality, even a real substance of sorts, which may be detectable in principle – but not within the four-dimensional boundaries of this universe. Paul the Apostle
alluded to something along these lines in presenting the concept of
resurrection. Using the distinction between different kinds of
"flesh" on the earth (men, fish, birds, etc.) as an analogy, Paul
suggests a further distinction between flesh and spirit entities: "So also
is the resurrection of the dead…. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual
body" (1 Cor. 15:42-44). A body, of course, is to be understood as a real
entity.

Keeping
in mind again that the observable universe may not exhaust the whole of reality,
this all suggests the possibility of real extra-dimensional entities that may
be perceived by an equally real but different set of senses belonging to
resurrected (spiritual) bodies. Unless the natural universe has inexplicably popped
into existence from utter nothingness (non-reality) – which both logic and
physics would seem to forbid – the reality of this spiritual dimension seems a viable,
perhaps probable and even compelling prospect. Note that in the attempt to explain the origin of the universe and reconcile Quantum Mechanics with General Relativity, physicists advancing String Theory and M-Theory routinely suggest extra-dimensional realities. Extra-dimensional realities, then, may directly affect our four-dimensional universe. Those premises
granted, the rest of the argument follows easily: if "extra-dimensional" may be considered roughly equivalent to "extra-natural," and "extra-natural" to "super-natural," then there remains
no good reason for asserting that supernatural explanations are invalid.

Joe, I do make those suggestions tentatively. But I honestly see no reason to think that the spiritual realm is not somehow perceptible or tangible in another, eternal dimension of reality. In some sense the kingdom of God may even be physical or quasi-physical. The only thing keeping me from stating so outright is a Christian tradition affirming dualism of "physical" and "spiritual." Reading Paul on the resurrection, however, leads me to think that this dualism is probably false. I suppose the sticking point is whether "flesh and blood" – which cannot inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 15:50) – is strictly synonymous with "physical," or tangible, perceptible, etc.

Might be worth noting that the early Patristics (following suit of Jewish philosophers and rabbis, over-against typical Greco-Roman thinking), insisted that only God, as the fundamental ground of all reality, can exist without some type of body. This was a main push by the early orthodox and proto-orthodox philosophers against their Gnostic and semi-Gnostic opponents, too. They somewhat differed, as far as I can tell, from their Jewish parallels, by taking the route that spiritual bodies were finer, whereas Jewish philosophers treated spirits and spiritual bodies as being more real and more powerful, and denser in many ways, than merely physical bodies. (A concept notably taken up by C. S. Lewis, although I think he was borrowing this from later medieval Christian thought.)

Consequently, when the Patristics talked about flesh and blood being done away with and transformed into spiritual bodies, their key point -- put a little literally -- was that flesh and blood rot and dissolve in mortality! Infused and transformed by spiritual reality, the body cannot suffer corruption but becomes incorruptible.

From a modern scientific perspective, we might say that our bodies are already solidified light / energy (at the atomic and sub-atomic constitution) but that they'll be reorganized into a less or non-entropic form of solid light/energy.

That being said, I've always presented the natural/supernatural distinction, not so much as one between physical and spiritual (much less matter and energy, or various states thereof), but from a substantial ontology so to speak: the supernatural is a level of reality substantially different from the natural, which can introduce effects into the natural level, and upon which the natural may depend for existence.

From that perspective, an atheist could be a supernaturalist: the ground of natural reality is something substantially different than the evident field of Nature, and produces it, but is still not intrinsically active (which would be supernaturalistic theism of some type.)

Didn't Paul make the resurrection seem like what some people would call "soul sleep" in 1 Corinthians 15 to please the Pharisees (who believed in soul sleep until the day of the messiah according to what someone told me on another site)?

If he was doing that, it is interesting, because there is another scripture where Paul describes being caught up to the third heaven (he was speaking in the third person). It may have been when he was stoned to death in Lystra and almost died (may have been dead for a time).

I think I can say with some assurance that, whatever Paul may have done politically to soothe ruffled feathers in Jerusalem, he wasn't interested in pleasing his former fellow Pharisees in his epistles, especially to congregations where he indicates a substantial number of former pagans. {wry g}

That said, I don't know whether Paul testifies one way or another to soul sleep in 1 Cor. He does talk about visionary experiences (although those might actually have been a reference to someone else having what we now call the RevJohn experiences, John the Apostle or Elder or John Mark or whichever John that was), but that might not count one way or another -- I do like your idea that, if it was Paul's own visions (and there are rhetorical suggestions along that line for modesty's sake), it happened after he had been wounded practically to death. (Fighting beasts in Ephesus would be another candidate for that event -- that should have been to the death, and one of the great untold stories of his career is WHAT THE HECK ACTUALLY HAPPENED THERE?!)

He also says somewhere (in one of the Pastorals? to Timothy?) that to be away from the body is to be at home with the Lord, which would seem to rule him out expecting soul sleep, at least for Christians.

Also: I'd be pretty leery, from experience and study, attaching any solid post-mortem beliefs to Pharisees in the early-mid 1st century, other than bodily resurrection. For one thing, Pharisaism of the time (and for probably also the post-Temple period until the Bar Kochba disaster) was a political party based on the idea that helping Israel stay Torah-true in practice would convince God to send the King Messiah at last to save Israel from oppression by the Romans and finally establish the Day of YHWH. That leaves some scope for a range of beliefs in some other regards.

Also, we know that Jews of the period, both in popular belief and in rabbinic (or proto-rabbinic) teaching, had a wide variety of ideas about what happened to both Jews and Gentiles after death, most of which didn't involve soul sleep, but most of which did involve the yearly Day of Atonement festival and its super-important Temple ritual (which then had to be replaced after 70 CE which also then started some shifts in what could be expected, if anything, about post-mortem atonement and why that might or might not happen.) How the Pharisees synched with that spread of ideas, in pre70s Judaism, whether in Palestine or in the Diaspora, is hard to make out. Josephus is a helpful source of course, but he has a demonstrable tendency to make things more clear-cut than we find in other sources.

Thanks for the comments Jason. Yes, one of the many insights of Lewis that has stuck with me over the years is his suggestion that our earthbound perspective is generally backwards – that the presently observable world is the "shadow" and the eternal kindgom the "substance." I think Joe, especially, would agree that God is the ultimate grounding of all reality, and therefore requires no bodily supports.

As far as terminology goes, my personal preference for "spiritual" over "supernatural" owes to a couple of factors: First, "spiritual" finds numerous expressions in Scripture, unlike "supernatural." Second, I think "supernatural," even more than "spiritual," has suffered from overuse and abuse. From what I've seen it tends to be associated with superstition as much as theology.

Popular posts from this blog

We have changed the Christian History page at the CADRE site from the old design to the new one. The focus of the revamped page has expanded, with many new articles:This page provides links to websites and articles relating to Christian history, including theological development, notable figures, contributions of Christianity to society and culture, and the archaeological evidence for the facts of the Bible.We have also added four new articles by Darin Wood, PhD:John Chrysostum: His Life, Legacy, and InfluenceDr. Wood provides an informative sketch of Chrysostum's life, as well as an exploration into his writings and impact on church evangelism.The Righteousness of God in the Pauline CorpusDr. Wood examines the crucial role that righteousness plays in understanding Paul's perspectives on justification, propitiation, expiation, and covenant. The Structure of the ApocalypseDr. Wood provides an in-depth analysis of the structure (or structures) behind the Book of Revelation. C…

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

Stand to Reason has published a list of "talking points" that can be used as a quick reference sheet for answering questions about embryonic stem cell research and why people ought to oppose this procedure. The piece, entitled "Are you against stem cell research and cloning?" give good, concise answers to some of the questions that arise concerning why Christians would oppose this procedure when it supposedly holds such great promise.

For example, consider the following from the "talking points":

Where do we get human embryonic stem cells? We can only derive human embryonic stem cells by killing a human embryo. Removing its stem cells leaves it with no cells from which to build the organs of its body.

What is the embryo? An embryo is a living, whole, human organism (a human being) in the embryonic stage. All the embryo needs to live is a proper environment and adequate nutrition, the very same thing all infants, toddlers, adolescents, and adults need.This i…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

What is the genre of the Gospel of John and why does it matter? The latter question is easy to answer. It matters because “identification of a work’s genre helps us understand its place within the literary history . . . and aids us in its interpretation.” A.R. Cross, "Genres of the New Testament," in Dictionary of New Testament Background, eds. Craig Evans and Stanley E. Porter, page 402. When you pick up a contemporary book, you start with the knowledge that what you are reading is a romance, a science text book, a science fiction novel, a biography, or a book of history. That knowledge informs how you understand the text you are reading, such as reading how spaceship's propulsion system works in a scientific textbook or a Star Trek "technical manual". Or a scene of combat found in a historical novel or a biography of a medal of honor winner. Although these accounts may be described in similar ways, one you accept as true and the other you treat as fict…

One of the most interesting passages in Mark’s Passion Narrative, from a historiographical perspective, is Mark 15:21:

A certain man from Cyrene, Simon, the father of Alexander and Rufus, was passing by on his way in from the country and they forced him to carry the cross.First let us compare the passage to its parallels in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (it does not appear at all in the Gospel of John).

As they led him away, they seized a man, Simon of Cyrene, who was coming from the country, and they laid the cross on him, and made him carry it behind Jesus.Luke 23:26.

As they went out, they came upon a man from Cyrene named Simon; they compelled this man to carry his cross.Matt 27:32.

Matthew and Luke retain the reference to Simon as well as describe him as being from Cyrene, but drop the reference to Cyrene being “the father of Alexander and Rufus.”

It is notable that Mark identifies Simon by name. This is rare for Mark unless the author is referring to the disciples and some famil…

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

Richard H. Casdroph collected medical evidence, x-rays, angiograms, and other data from 10 cases associated with the Kathryn Kulhman ministry. Now it will of course strike skeptics as laughable to document the miracles of a faith healer. Ordinarily I myself tend to be highly skeptical of any televangelists. I am still skeptical of Kulhman because of her highly theatrical manner. But I always had the impression that there was actual documentation of her miracles and I guess that impression was created by the Casdorph book.

The Casdroph book goes into great detail on every case. Since these were not the actual patients of Casdroph himself, there are three tiers of medical data and opinion; Casdroph himself and his evaluation of the data, several doctors with whom he consulted on every case (and they vary from case to case), and the original doctors of the patients themselves. The patient…

Since the most prolific of my blogging partners, Layman, has been tied up at work (and looks to be for some time), I thought that in light of the Christmas season, I would repost two pieces that he wrote a couple of years ago about the Census in Luke 2 because we have an number of new readers who may never have read through his thoughts on this issue from two years ago. They are republished as originally written with only my correcting some typographical errors. Enjoy.

===============

Luke, the Census, and Quirinius: A Matter of Translation

Introducing the Issue

One of the more well-known criticisms of the Gospel of Luke’s infancy narratives is that it puts the census (also called a “registration”), that caused Joseph and Mary to travel to Bethlehem, at the wrong time. Most versions translate Luke 2:1 along the lines of the New Revised Standard Version:

Luke 2:2: This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.The problem is that the registration that oc…

In his paper "Must the Beginning of The Universe Have a Personal Cause?"[1]Wes Morriston quotes William Lane Craig making the augment that a personal origin is the only way to have an eternal cause with a temporal effect.[2] The rationale for that is merely an assertion that with an eternal cause working mechanically the effect would be eternal too,:If the cause were simply a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions existing from eternity, then why would not the effect also exist from eternity? For example, if the cause of water's being frozen is the temperature's being below zero degrees, then if the temperature were below zero degrees from eternity, then any water present would be frozen from eternity. The only way to have an eternal cause but a temporal effect would seem to be if the cause is a personal agent who freely chooses to,create an effect in time.[3]Craig is using this argument to argue for the personal nature of God, If God was j…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.